Let’s say there is a mangina out there in Silicon Valley who panders to women and wants to “help” them. For his attempts at helping, he gets viciously attacked by feminists. Despite the attacks, he does not have the presence of mind to realize that being a mangina was a big mistake. The mangina in question is Vivek Wadhwa, the Indian-American venture capitalist and academic.

On this week’s episode of Portlandia, they made fun of male feminists. A guy with no job who does nothing around the house and wife is a breadwinner discovers that he’s a male feminist because he’s taking on the traditional female role. It’s broken up into 3 segments starting at 02:08 and continuing at 10:04 and 19:16:

I recommend watching the whole thing. The segment about all the alternate sexualities you can come up with for Coming Out Day is hilarious and so is the segment where an actress gets advice from the Feminist Bookstore women. And the Feminist Bookstore segment merges into the last male feminist segment so you need to watch it to know what’s going on.

What I really liked about how Portlandia made fun of male feminists is how it made fun (probably unintentionally) of both male feminists and stay at home women. The guy discovers that he’s a male feminist because he’s taken on the traditional female role, and his wife has taken on the traditional male role. However, the guy doesn’t do any cleaning or cooking. They have a maid, and the wife ends up doing the cooking. That’s a very interesting way of slamming women for being feminist, but also wanting to stay at home and not do any housework either.

The last segment was good too. The guy (along with some other male feminists) annoy some people in a movie theater, and neither men nor women are interested in what they have to say. I won’t spoil what happens to the guy (and the other male feminists), but you will appreciate it.

One thing the attack on Charlie Hebdo has done is given us evidence on how feminists view men like Elliot Rodger compared to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Both Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers murdered several people. However, the feminist reaction to Elliot Rodger and Charlie Hebdo has been quite different.

This is in complete contrast to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. They were not mentally ill and were working with Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Objectively, this makes the Charlie Hebdo attackers much worse than Elliot Rodger. As long as AQAP is still around, then what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did has not ended. The feminist reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attackers is to come close to defending them such as with this article from Feministing or in the case of Jonathan McIntosh (Anita Sarkeesian’s “partner” as Feminist Frequency and likely boyfriend):

McIntosh actually thinks that what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did wasn’t that bad because they were “marginalized”. Feminists pretend that Elliot Rodger is a demon and a terrorist while supporting actual terrorists. Why do feminists think Elliot Rodger was evil while the Charlie Hebdo attackers are misunderstood? It comes down to one thing. Elliot Rodger murdered (pretty white) women so they consider him to be a misogynist despite the fact that he murdered more men than women. Feminists considered some of the work that Charlie Hebdo published to be misogynist. It all comes down to the fact that feminists consider violence to be legitimate against anyone they consider to be a “misogynist”. That is why they treat Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers so differently. That’s it.

Say you have two things, a political ideology and a hobby. Which one do you think will be attacked more? Obviously, the political ideology regardless of what the political ideology is. This is even more true if said political ideology is totalitarian like feminism is. If a hobby gets attacked even 1% as much as a non-totalitarian political ideology (much less a totalitarian political ideology), there is something wrong with the people attacking said hobby.

My impression from this discussion is that the people who are most angry at what Amanda wrote (and rightly so), only are bothered by attacks on nerds, but don’t object to dehumanizing attacks on feminists. In fact, posts containing such attacks are often praised.

That’s because another name for nerds would be hobbyists because what defines “nerd” among other things is their hobbies such as comics, video games, etc. Feminists are believers in a totalitarian political ideology. Any reasonable person would object to attacks on nerds but not feminists. And what does Ampersand consider examples of “dehumanizing attacks on feminists”?

I’ve also seen a bunch of blog posts responding to the response to Comment #171 by savaging feminists in general – Scott Alexander’s post, of course, but also a bunch like this one (sample quote: “Remember you are voting for the biggest entitlement princess, not necessarily the most evil woman or the most violent woman or the most insane woman or the biggest whore”) or this one, which talks about “feminist toxic trash” and is also viciously mean to Scott Aaronson (but highly praises Scott Alexander’s essay). The essay Scott recommended in #554 describes feminists as “digging trenches of resentment with shovels of hatred in order to launch volleys of degrading and dehumanizing bile towards anyone who dares think for themselves.” She doesn’t say “some” feminists, and her essay explicitly says she’s talking about all feminism, not just tumblr feminism.

Ampersand uses my standard reminder in every Entitlement Princess of the Month post as evidence of a “dehumanizing attack on feminists” but that has several obvious problems especially in that that statement doesn’t even speak about anyone in particular much less feminists. The only way that could be stretched to mean an attack of feminists is if one woman = all women = feminists, and even then it makes no sense. As for the second and third examples (here is the link for “the essay Scott recommended in #554″), they are the types of things people say about totalitarian political ideologies. Similar things are said about Nazism and Communism for good reason. No one would buy a Nazi trying to say, “not all Nazis are like that” or a Communist trying to say, “not all Communists are like that” so any reasonable person would not accept Ampersand trying to pull the same trick with respect to feminism.

This whole thing is an example of why feminism is a totalitarian political ideology. Feminists believe that the “personal is political”. In other words, nothing is separate from politics so to feminists nerds are not hobbyists but a political faction. Feminists view gamers the same way which is why we ended up with #GamerGate. Reality is much different. A hobby is not a political ideology.

this is why your website is evil. it pretends to be a space for men, but in your article you insult people like me. you pretend to be geek by saying us & we but you clearly aren’t because when the man reveals his pain you belittle it by comparing him & us to a scooby doo cartoon & ignoring the argument that he made about joining a country or other organization.

noah, you don’t even run this website anymore. a man-hating girl runs it & you should be ashamed. you’ve let all men. you suck. you shouldn’t be writing about geeks any more than i should be writing about football.

This is a very succinct explanation of everything that is wrong with The Good Mangina Project.

Being a mangina/white knight will not get you laid. It won’t get you any other benefits either. Male feminists are the enemy to feminists as much as non-feminist men are. Being a male feminist is far from a guarantee of protection against feminism.

The greatest example of this has to be David Futrelle. He failed to get any traction despite four years of blogging lies about MRAs so he had to change the name of his blog. All of Futrelle’s work has not generated any benefits for him just like with any other male feminist.

All of you should remember the conscious men from a couple of years ago and their Dear Woman video:

Have you wondered what a more conservative, less new agey version of the conscious men would look like? You don’t need to wonder any longer because I found it, a guy who opens doors for women because he adores the feminine genius. He doesn’t even try to define what the “feminine genius” is supposed to be (probably because he knows he can’t), but he knows he is supposed to serve it:

No, instead when I look at women I see the feminine genius. A genius so profoundly complex, important and valuable that I adore it. I adore the feminine genius because I am a real man who has not had his masculine awareness dulled by erroneous ideologies about gender, or seriously messed up by pornography-fueled predatory attitudes towards women.

As a real man I know that for my masculinity to scale the heights of greatness, I depend totally on the feminine genius to become the best that a man can ever be – in much the same way that I depend on oxygen to keep on living.

Without the complimentary and amazing feminine genius I can never be a real man. Instead I am doomed to be nothing more than the masculine equivalent of a rōnin – the Japanese name for a samurai without a master to lead him, a term which literally means “wave man” because he is adrift without direction and purpose.

I open doors for women because I know they deserve my profound adoration and selfless love. My tiny act of sacrifice is my way of saying ‘I am in awe of your feminine genius and all that I owe to it as a man’.

Weiner has fallen the fourth place in the New York City mayoral race. He plays the only option he has left which is a last ditch effort where he invokes feminism and makes an appeal to women. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s a common tactic in politics when a politician is desperate. In Weiner’s case (as in many other politicians), it means his campaign is on the verge of crashing and burning. I expect that he will drop out of the mayoral race soon.

Indeed, many of them — as tech dudes in a male-dominated tech world — are in fact in fairly privileged positions. For them to claim they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from the evils of “fake gamer girls” is a bit like Klan members claiming they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from blacks, Jews and Catholics. (Which is more or less what Klan members have argued over the years, albeit in less PC language.)

Manboobz seems to think that a group of dudes who want to engage in geeky activities without interference from feminists is equivalent to a group that lynched massive numbers of black men and engaged in terrorism. Just as that comparison makes no sense, it makes no sense to call male geeks, “privileged”. These are men who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy. It’s a guarantee that almost any woman is higher on the social hierarchy than they are. Feminists believe that homeless men are more privileged than women too so I’m not surprised they believe the same thing about male geeks.

Unlike the KKK, male geeks do need a safe space from women. The feminist assault on the male geek subculture proves that. Take Anita Sarkeesian. She thinks it’s perfect all right to declare fatwas on male video game designers like how she endorses the murder of Randy Pitchford for reviving a video game series she doesn’t like:

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever

In other words, if the legal system must default to letting a guilty person escape whose guilt can’t be proven rather than let an innocent person be imprisoned because the alternative is to completely undermine the desire of people to follow the law. In such a scenario, either the government collapses into anarchy because no one trusts it, or a police state (which will be corrupt by definition) will be established. Knowing this it’s no surprise that the critics of Blackstone’s formulation are mostly tyrants or apologists for tyrants. Pol Pot was a strident critic of Blackstone’s formulation.

There is no way to completely eliminate rape as there is no way to completely eliminate any other form of crime. Imprisoning innocent men like Jesse Powell TWRA (and Pol Pot) would want to do will not eliminate rape. Instead it destabilizes our government potentially leading to a police state which is exactly what a tyrant would want. If Sir William Blackstone and the Founding Fathers were around today, they would agree with Paul Elam’s point of view because they understand that Blackstone’s formulation is a necessary component of a free and just society.

Jesse Powell TWRA clearly disagrees with Blackstone’s formulation so the only conclusion that we can draw is that he wants a matriarchal police state to “protect women”. This is a case with a clear difference between two sets of ideas. On one side you have Sir William Blackstone & the Founding Fathers defending freedom and justice. On the other you have Pol Pot and a police state. Jesse Powell TWRA has chosen the latter.

I to place an emphasis on the need for men to assert authority and to claim their “rightful role in society” but I always make sure to place men’s assertion of authority in its rightful context; that male authority is only legitimate for the purpose of serving women’s interests.

The rightful role of men is both leader and authority figure as well as provider and protector. Men asserting their rightful role in society has to include both assertion of authority and acceptance of responsibility and burden; indeed the assertion of authority is explicitly for the purpose of allowing men to provide for and protect women. The ultimate male purpose is to provide for and protect women; the means to achieve this end is male authority.

The difference between Jesse Powell and the feminist manginas and the tradcon white knights is that feminists and tradcons are much smarter about hiding their motives. Feminists will at least play a bit of lip service to male problems with “patriarchy hurts men too”. Tradcons will pretend that the believe in real male authority when they talk about male leadership. In both cases, they’re lying but at least they’re making a minimal attempt to make their respective ideologies appealing to men and attempting to have some sort of internal consistency. Feminists and tradcons are smart enough to know that they can’t openly talk about de facto male slavery for the benefit of women and expect to have more than a small handful of male supporters. Can nazbol misandrists really be this stupid? Clearly, the answer is yes.

At least I hope for his sake that he’s learned this lesson. After all, Tom Matlack picked the hard way to learn it.

As reported by A Voice For Men, Tom Matlack has left The Good Man Mangina Project. What happened here? Tom Matlack is the founder of The Good Mangina Project. Matlack had a severe slap from the reality of feminism when it comes to men, namely that a man can never be mangina enough for feminists. TFH has talked about how many manginas have been doubling down on their white knighting over the last few years, and Matlack was no exception.

What happened to Tom Matlack was inevitable. Eventually, every mangina will come face to face with the reality that they can never be anything other than an evil man to feminists. The only question is whether that mangina will accept that reality or go into denial. For Tom Matlack’s sake, I hope he has picked the former, but I would not be surprised if he choose the latter.

Since most women have no interest in pegging men, then what is the problem? The problem is similar to the Susan Walsh line of, “I’m not a feminist because I’m against sluts/have no interest in being a slut.” The average woman is going to look at feminists talking about pegging and think their nuts. This sounds like a good thing except that it give the average woman cover for her own misandry because clearly she “can’t be a feminist” because she isn’t interested in unusual sex acts like pegging. The average “not a feminist” woman will still be a misandrist and do things like use the feminist anti-family court system to divorce her husband all the while considering herself different from the feminists in the same way that Susan Walsh thinks that she is “not a feminist”.

What is happening with feminists and pegging is that what gets called “feminist” becomes a smaller and smaller subset of true misandry as feminism requires more and more obscure ideas and practices for someone to consider themselves a feminist. This creates a problem where it becomes easier for women and manginas can be both “anti-feminist” (although they would be AFINOs, anti-feminist in name only) and misandrist at the same time.

Those lesbian officers in supervising positions who go to work, day in day out, with the sole intent of attempting to prove your misandrist authority (not feminism) to degrade male officers. You are a high value target.

Since Chris Dorner is trying to defend feminism here, he is a feminist despite his complaints against misandrist lesbians. Misandry is feminism so trying to separate the two is a useless exercise in cognitive dissonance. It’s likely that Chris Dorner’s cognitive dissonance about feminism contributed to driving him insane and going on this killing spree. Chris Dorner would have been better off if he became an anti-feminist.

We hear a lot about how the Catholic Church is supposedly anti-feminist. Except for a few minor matters like abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, the Catholic Church agrees with feminism completely. Anyone who tries to claim that the Catholic Church is anti-feminist will typically say point out how much feminists hate the Catholic Church.

The left’s hatred of the Catholic church mirrors the way women look down on male feminists.

This is what it comes down to. The Catholic Church is the organization equivalent to male feminists. Just how male feminists are hated by feminists despite the fact that they agree with each other, so is the Catholic Church hated by feminists.

That’s an interesting way of framing the discussion. I’ve often viewed feminism as neither left nor right by nature. Instead it is as many feminists freely admit, a gender issue and there are members of both genders on either side of the political spectrum.

I think early feminists adopted the leftist view as a matter of strategy and for recruitment purposes. The Marxist approach to economics was easily adaptable to cultural practices. All it took to draw in membership was to convince people that women are disadvantaged. With societal structures predominantly populated with men, this was easy enough to do. The term “patriarchy” was redefined and used for this purpose. first wave feminists laid the groundwork and second wave feminists became the footsoldiers.

Aligning themselves with cultural Marxist idealism served another purpose as well. The communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era resulted in a popularization of Marxism during which time, it became chic to be openly Marxist and difficult, if not destructive, for opponents of Marxism to speak out against them. the fear of being identified as a “hatemonger” keeping opponents in line.

At first, feminism was only a part of the liberal movement of the 60s but by the mid-80s it had eclipsed the movement itself and liberalism had become more or less synonymous with feminism to the point that one could not be leftist and not be feminist.

On the right, the movement was more subtle. Women were already being pedastalized by white knight chivalry as standard practice. The leftist acceptance of the women as victim model was simmply transferred to the right. One did not have to adopt the value system to accept the model. In fact, on the right women were already seen as helpless. all that was needed was to turn “helpless” into “victim.”

The second wave feminist could fight the battles and the conservative feminist would move out of the way and then reap the rewards.

The chivalrist ideal was prevalent on the left as well. For more liberal chivalrists it was easy to accept feminists because of their Marxist position. They simply incorporated feminism into their own leftist idealism and became collaborationists (manginas as they are sometimes called). The right wing chivalrist (the white knight) picked up on the woman as victim mantra and rushed to her rescue.

Feminism transcends left and right. It is neither and it is both. It favors wealth and cultural redistribution from male to female while seeking to establish a totalitarian police state to control the “oppressor class.” To that end it has abandoned the liberal ideal of personal freedom and liberty for all, in favor of personal freedom and liberty for the new feminist oppressor class while restricting liberty and freedom for the new oppressed class (male). It seeks to replace what it calls patriarchy with matriarchy (which can now be equated with female supremacism). thus while claiming to hold the liberal ideal of “equality” feminism has in reality adopted the conservative ideal of a ruling class superior to that of the working class and with more rights and privilege and the full force of the state to enforce that privilege.

In this part of the internet there are many traditionalists and others who attack the idea of going ghost and try to promote marriage. They will repeatedly say that they are “defending marriage”. For those of us who know the score about marriage 2.0 and how marriage 1.0 is already dead in Western countries, these “defenders of marriage” are either intentionally or unintentionally pushing men into the feminist institution of marriage 2.0. Many of these “defenders of marriage” will claim that they are just trying to protect ”traditional marriage” (i.e. marriage 1.0) from those who are trying to “destroy marriage” (which typically means MRAs to them, even though MRAs aren’t trying to “destroy marriage,” but warn men of the dangers of marriage 2.0). How do we know whether these “defenders of marriage” are legitimate in their defense of marriage, or are just trying to force men to submit to a conservative/traditional form of feminism? The answer is the expat test.

In these arguments for and against marriage, the debate is presented as getting married vs. not getting married. This is an inaccurate way to frame how men are dealing with the current situation regarding marriage. There are more than just those two answers — there are actually three options:

Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country

Get married in a marriage 1.0 country (which by definition involves expating, because bringing a woman to a marriage 2.0 country ends up being option 1)

Don’t get married whether you expat or not

Anyone who claims to defend “traditional marriage” should love option 2. They should love the idea of a man making sure that he gets a traditional marriage by expating to a marriage 1.0 county. It shouldn’t matter to them where a traditional marriage happens as long as it happens. This objectively does more to preserve “traditional marriage” – by any definition that the “defenders of marriage” would use – than getting married in a marriage 2.0 country, which does nothing to preserve traditional marriage.

If you confront “defenders of marriage” with the expat test, what will their response be? Typically, they will be against the idea of a man expating to another country to enjoy a traditional marriage. They will come up with all sorts of nonsense to argue against expating to contract a marriage 1.0 arrangement. The arguments range from culture to, in extreme cases, white nationalism/racial obligations. In other words, in nearly all cases, a “defender of marriage” will fail the expat test, proving that their real goal has nothing to do with “traditional marriage;” instead, it is about placating the women in their churches and producing more babies. Their push for marriage is really about white knighting for women and/or their fear that their group or race is not having enough babies.

If you’re reading this, it’s likely none of this is is new to you. However, the expat test still has value because it can be used as a tool to prove objectively that nearly all “defenders of marriage” aren’t actually defending marriage, but have other goals, none of which take men’s interests into consideration.

Please, would you and the others in the manosphere quit using the Jew analogy! The whole holocaust fairytale is complete bullshit. I believed it for most of my life, just like you, how couldn’t we? It is all we are taught, or better said, it is all we are told, thousands upon thousands of times, everyday, everywhere we turn, pretty much from the age we learn to speak. But you’re obviously a bright guy that thinks for himself, so look into. We have the net now, you can educate yourself on so many things, like I am sure you did about the feminist lie. There is a ton of information out there. The Holohaux scam is falling apart, and fast, just like so many of the other scams. Get on the wave so as not to lose credibility. You’re a good writer.

And no, I am not a Neo-Nazi, or a “Jew-hater”, or any of the like…..just someone with a passion for the truth……..

I say keep using Jew analogies. Not only did the holocaust happen, but what happened to the Jews is an apt metaphor for is happening to men. I also like how it pisses off white nationalists.

The Jews in charge see the MRM as benign and non-threatening and useful too. Some time ago I looked at some MRM websites, and they all had one thing in common. If you did what they said, you would be contributing to the end of the white race.

There’s an MRM blog called “Citizen Renegade” where the author who is a Jew tells white men how to “game” women for one night stands. White men who listen to Mr. Renegade will not have relationships with white women or form families meaning that the next generation of whites will be smaller. There’s another MRM blog called “Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology”. It should be called Pro-Jew/Anti-White Technology. The author there encourages men to only have children with Indian surrogate mothers in India. I also found a guy there called The Fifth Horseman, a Hindu Indian, who brags about how he tricked women into miscegenation by donating sperm to a sperm bank and claiming he was white on their paperwork. There’s also a blog called “Omega Virgin Revolt” that is about nothing but generating hate among white men for white women.

The MRM is Jew run movement for preventing white men from forming families with white women and killing off white children before they’re even conceived. If you aren’t convinced the MRM is a Jew run movement go to any MRM blog and you will find them defending the Jew Strauss-Kahn and saying that Jew is a victim.

I don’t believe that MRAs tell the truth about their experience with women. Some of them say they have a girlfriend/wife while it’s obviously false – guys that brags their girlfriend is a virgin supermodel member of MENSA. Some say they have submissive girlfriend/wife and they lie (Dalrock say that he’s a happily married Christian man and it’s obvious from what he writes that he’s not happy and very frustrated).

All right, I admit it. All the women I talked about banging and being my girlfriends are completely made up. Who else is making up girlfriends, wives, and sex partners? Come on admit it.

Seriously? WTF? I could post a video of myself in 1080p in 3D having sex with a woman or the time I had a threesome or have sex with a woman right in front of him, and this guy will still claim that I’m not getting laid. This is how wedded our our enemies are to the idea that all of us are losers who can’t get laid. First, it doesn’t matter if any of us are having sex or not. Second, even though most of us are getting laid and/or have girlfriends, our enemies just say this over and over again (if they don’t go the code magenta route of accusing us of preying on defenseless women).

The argument against code purple shaming language is usually about that whether a man is getting laid or not is not relevant to his ideas. That is correct of course, and the principle we need to defend. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t fight code purple shaming language in other ways. Pointing out that code purple shaming language is used against men who get laid regularly really knocks out the legs from under it. It’s the ultimate way of showing the principle that mens rights ideas aren’t based on whether he is getting laid or not. Plus, it makes our enemies look like the absurd morons they are.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to have sex with a virgin supermodel MENSA member.

Clifford Shack sees a nefarious motive behind male circumcision, which has recently been protected BY LAW in California. He thinks men are being deprived of sexual satisfaction. I think that anything that diminishes the over-sized role played by the penis in a man’s life is positive. In fact, the option of taking a libido inhibitor would be a blessing for youths, reversible after a young man has matured and established himself. (But that’s another story.)

Clifford Shack sees a nefarious motive behind male circumcision, which has recently been protected BY LAW in California. He thinks men are being deprived of sexual satisfaction. I think that anything that diminishes the over-sized role played by the penis in a man’s life is positive. In fact, the option of chemical castration would be a blessing for youths, reversible after a young man has matured and established himself. (But that’s another story.)

I added the bold. I have also saved a screen shot of this in case it disappears. If thinking about Dick Cheney’s penis was bizarre enough, Henry Makow believes that castration would be a “blessing” for young men. I’m almost surprised he chose to cover his tracks on this because he never tried to hide his fixation on Dick Cheney’s penis.

My most serious relationship was with a musician. He ended up moving to NYC to pursue music and I didn’t think I could keep up with his lifestyle or the city. He also drank quite a bit. I have tended to attract addicted men — something I have had to watch out for.

I am currently not working because of nervous burnout and I can’t believe the guilt that’s been thrown at me, for trying to stop and take care of myself.

I am under a lot of pressure and criticism from others. For instance, when I go to a singles event and a guy is talking to me and finds out I don’t have a job right now, and then walks away or looks at me weird. In that case–I may know that he’s looking for someone to take care of him.

I find most of the “alt right” to be completely useless. They are very similar to the white (knight) nationalists who are nothing but manginas. Here is a good example. Some of you might be familiar with Brett Stevens. For those of you who aren’t, he’s one of the “alt right” types, and he writes at amerika.org.

An estimated 95% of the rapes that take place in the UK are never reported. Only 6.5% of reported rapes in England and Wales result in a conviction on the charge of rape. – The Guardian

Why so few convictions? Because in a time of sexual liberation, there’s almost no way to prove rape. Unless a dozen people saw the woman screaming “stop rape” after she was assaulted by a random person, there’s no real evidence. Semen or a condom? Also used for consensual sex. Evidence of roughness? Also happens during “normal” sex. He will say she said she wanted to have sex; she’ll say she didn’t. Did she change her mind? Did he misread the signals? It’s not as serious a crime anymore, because with so many women chucking the goods out the door without a second thought, it’s hard to prove they were unlikely to have said yes. No one wants to start another million-dollar court case where the evidence will never be strong enough to satisfy many critical observers.

Here, Brett Stevens takes feminist statistics on rape as gospel. Rather than admitting the false rape industry exists, Stevens says that DSK, the Duke Lacrosse players, Julian Assange, and many other men we don’t know the names of are all guilty of rape, but it couldn’t be proven. This is verbatim what feminists say about false rape accusations, that the accused men are all guilty but got off scot free. The fact is that these women lied. There is no confusion or lack of evidence. The facts are these women lied, but Stevens defends them like a feminist.

Brett Stevens supports the false rape industry just like a feminist. And like feminists, he is perfectly fine with false rape accusations being used against those he perceives as political enemies.

The last thing I will add, withdrawing chivalry from women as a means to punish the woman is never legitimate and is something I would characterize as being abusive towards women

I bolded that last part. Here we have an example of tradcons using code tangerine shaming language. The false abuse industry isn’t limited to leftist feminists.

The funniest part of this is if you scroll up to where the (Not) Thinking Housewife has to remind everyone that Jesse Powell is a man. He’s such a big mangina and white knight that it’s easy to think he’s a woman.